More staffy attacks on kids

[Lounge Jay]

I think pitbulls should be banned in the UK. Existing dogs shouldnt be destroyed, but a ban should be put on the breeding of them to allow the breed(s) to go extinct.

 

We should set a date, say, the 1st january 2013, and any pitbull dog deemed by experts to have been born after that date should be destroyed and the owner fined.

[PaliRichard]

I refer to them as fighting dogs because they were bred (genetically 'designed') for fighting, and, because they are in fact still used for that purpose. Similarly, many terriors were bred/designed to kill small animals/vermin. I'm not insulting the breed, simply refering to it's origins[/Quote]

 

I would recommend you watch this horizon which has a very good segment on how dogs can quickley be bread to lose there vicious characteristics and (as someone on here has already pointed out) this is largely (by most responsible breeders) what has occurred with Staffy's. Granted they still have 'the look', and that's what the meatheads go for, but, as qualified by all the Staffy owners on this thread, they are now no more 'fighting' dogs than we are great apes.

 

As many have pointed out, most staffy's are very good with people. A minority are not good with people, and, unfortunately, on the rare occasions a staffy attacks a human, because of it's bred characteristics, the attack tends to be a lot worse than an attack by a dog not bred for fighting[/Quote] I don't know about that (that is, I'm not disagreeing, I genuinly don't know) I haven't seen the data. What I suspect, like most of us who know staffy's on here suspect, is that most of it is press sensationalism. How many of these 'vicious' attacks are actually by staffordshire bull terriers? I'd like to know the stats.

 

I don't understand this 'details withheld for obvious reasons'- didn't understand it the first time you said it and still don't now.

 

Clearly the reasons aren't 'obvious', otherwise I wouldn't need to be asking

 

If, as you claim, disabling an attacking dog is so easy, then I'd suggest you explain how, as, if it was common knowledge (and if it worked) then the problem of people being killed/maimed by dogs could be eliminated.

 

I suspect the real reason for your reluctance could be concern that your methods might not stand up to scrutiny by those with a more practical approach to self defense and violence in general?[/Quote]

 

Details are witheld because we are on a public forum and I am responsible, nothing more, I have given plenty of 'hints' without the details. I never said disabling an attacking dog would be easy, nor the techniques common knowledge, I said thatI could think of several ways to defend myself by adapting techniques used against people based on anotomical similarities between the species. My point was, personally speaking I would rather be attacked by a staffy than a larger dog because it would be easier to defend against.

 

Concerning knife attacks, try talking to someone who knows about real practical self defense: against a knife attack, if you're not either running or acquiring the nearest object that can be used to stop the attacker, then you're probably going to be dead. I know in the old movies you've got the 'jacket round the arm' trick, but, in real life, it doesn't work. Neither is an extensive knowledge of arm locks, or, a black belt going to save you[/Quote]

 

I don't understand you here. All I said was trying to aquire an object (unless it was obviously at hand) was silly if being attacked by a knife, not that they were easy to defend against. In fact you've really just proven my point. Knife attacks are so dangerous (which was my point) that comparing them to a dog attack is a bit silly (which is was what you did). Someone with a knife is far more dangerous than just about any dog attack, which is why I picked you up on comparing them.

 

Mmm... that's a strawman, so i won't be getting involved as I've never made the claim you seem to be attributuing to me. For the record, I agree that humans cause far more problems than dogs, it's just not relevant to the points I'm making[/Quote]

 

I apologise, I wasn't sure who had made the point. It isn't however a straw man, it's very relevant to the subject, comparitively speaking humans are far more dangerous than any breed of dog. There are suggestions (granted, not by you) by some on here to 'breed them out'. I disagree. Once more I apologise for getting the wrong person

 

I'll even admit than when it comes to attacks by Staffies, when it comes to attributing blame, it's generally going to be traceable back to a human (e.g. the owner)[/Quote]

 

I would sespect that, but I don't know, I haven't seen the data.

 

I'm not tarring the whole breed with anything other than the undeniable fact that any staffy, if it kicks off, will generally cause a whole lot more damage than your average breed of dog[/Quote]

 

I think changing that to 'some' breeds of dog would be better. Like I said I'd rather be faced with a staffy than an alsation. Even in play a larger dog 'feels' more threatening. I'm not sure what an 'average' dog is!

 

Along with the fact, (as we both agree that problematic dogs are generally the result of irresponsible owners), that because of the breeds reputation, a lot of staffies end up in the hands of owners who don't know how to bring them up e.g. chavs who acquire them because of their reputation as being fighting dogs.

 

I don't think chavs get them because of their reputation as fighting dogs, I think they get them because they look 'ard (which I think is at least some of the problem with the press). My brother in law actually got a dog that had been used as a 'practice' dog for actual, illegal, dog fighters (who apparently used many breeds). The stories the rescue centre told him about these criminals were far different than the way your average 'chav' brings up the dogs. To 'most' (I'm not by any stretch suggesting all) 'chavs' the dogs are status symbols.

 

I do agree with the bit I've highlighted wholeheartedly, and I think that is the crux of the point with any breed, If you make no attampt to bring it up properly (or mistreat it), it is more likely to turn, just like any dog, just like any person who has been abused. They are intelligent animals that like any intelligent animal wants love and attention.

[onewheeldave]

 

Any dog can be nasty, any dog can turn. The majority don't, and won't - but when they do, no matter what breed it is, its never a 'nice' attack, staffy or not. Its just that staffys make the news more often. I don't know why. Perhaps when a yorkie or a labrador bite a child, their parents don't go running to the paper, but they do when its a staff, because they know they'll be interested.

 

I feel like I'm labouring this point, but, it's an important one, so... the reason 'Yorky attacks' do not make the papers is that, despite being unpleasant, an attack by a Yorkshire terrier will not leave a child maimed, dead, or faceless.

 

Whereas an attack by a Staffy could well (and have) left a child maimed, dead, or faceless- that's why many staffy attacks make the national papers.

 

I'm not saying that Staffys are more aggressive than other breeds- they aren't, I agree with you that-

 

 

Call me biased as I own a staff, but I own a staff for one reason. Because I have never, personally, seen any other breed that is consistently as good an 'all rounder' dog as a staffy. Well behaved, quite easy to train, good on lead, good off lead, good with children, adults, other dogs, and every single one I've ever personally met has been like that. Thats why it was my breed of choice, no other reasons. And from what I see from my dog, I wouldn't want another breed.

 

it's just that, on the rare occasion a Staffy attacks, the consequences will tend to be very bad indeed, generally worse than most other breeds.

 

And yes, it is usually bad ownership, but again, that doesn't alter the actual consequences one jot- it's certainly no consolation to the child facing a life with severe facial disfigurements.

[nikki-red]

I think pitbulls should be banned in the UK. Existing dogs shouldnt be destroyed, but a ban should be put on the breeding of them to allow the breed(s) to go extinct.

 

We should set a date, say, the 1st january 2013, and any pitbull dog deemed by experts to have been born after that date should be destroyed and the owner fined.

 

 

Pitbulls (or any dog the experts deem to be 'of type') are already banned in the UK

[onewheeldave]

I would recommend you watch this horizon which has a very good segment on how dogs can quickley be bread to lose there vicious characteristics and (as someone on here has already pointed out) this is largely (by most responsible breeders) what has occurred with Staffy's. Granted they still have 'the look', and that's what the meatheads go for, but, as qualified by all the Staffy owners on this thread, they are now no more 'fighting' dogs than we are great apes.

 

 

You do realise that Staffys are still used in illegal dog fights?

 

They still have the characteristic physique common to dogs used for fighting i.e. muscular squat body, powerful jaw etc, etc.

 

A new born staffy is probably emotionally no more a fighting dog than any other- but, for anyone wanting to bring it up as a fighter, it's certainly going to have the physical characteristics necessary for success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand you here. All I said was trying to aquire an object (unless it was obviously at hand) was silly if being attacked by a knife, not that they were easy to defend against. In fact you've really just proven my point. Knife attacks are so dangerous (which was my point) that comparing them to a dog attack is a bit silly (which is was what you did). Someone with a knife is far more dangerous than just about any dog attack, which is why I picked you up on comparing them.

 

Obviously an object suitable for a weapon must be very 'close at hand'- I wasn't suggesting forgetting about the knife attacker while you spend a few minutes rummaging through drawers

 

i.e. you're attacked on the street- a cars passing, can you barge into the attacker and try and put him/her under the car? That's a weapon.

 

is there a brick laying around- not brilliant against a knife, but better than a fist for redering him/her quickly unconscious.

 

etc, etc. Of course, anyone with genuine self-defence training (as opposed to black belt fantasists) would likely have been aware that something was building up and will have instintively clocked the immediate area for any object that could be used as a weapon.

 

My 'comparison' of a knife attack with a staffy attack was purely pointing out that, like a knife attack, where, regardless of how much training you've had, you are in a very serious situation which, most likely, will end in you being dead or in intensive care, similarly, if attacked by a viscious staffy intent on killing you, you're likely to be badly hurt/maimed/killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think chavs get them because of their reputation as fighting dogs, I think they get them because they look 'ard (which I think is at least some of the problem with the press). My brother in law actually got a dog that had been used as a 'practice' dog for actual, illegal, dog fighters (who apparently used many breeds). The stories the rescue centre told him about these criminals were far different than the way your average 'chav' brings up the dogs. To 'most' (I'm not by any stretch suggesting all) 'chavs' the dogs are status symbols.

 

I do agree with the bit I've highlighted wholeheartedly, and I think that is the crux of the point with any breed, If you make no attampt to bring it up properly (or mistreat it), it is more likely to turn, just like any dog, just like any person who has been abused. They are intelligent animals that like any intelligent animal wants love and attention.

 

I agree, most chavs get them cos they look hard, and, because they have a reputation for being fighting dogs. Most chavs don't have the knowledge or discipline necessary to train a staffy to fight other dogs.

 

Some do though, and, increasingly, in this world where knives are very common and guns are brought into play for the longer running disputes, staffys and similar dogs are being acquired for attacking and defending against humans.

 

I recall a documentary on this subject where the interviewer was talking to some guy flanked by 2 dogs (don't recall if they were staffys, but they were defintily fighter-looking dogs) and he asked the guy what he would have to do to make them attack him (the interveiwer). The reply was than he'd simply 'look at him' i.e. he'd trained the dogs to lethally attack anyone when prompted by a particular look form the owner.

 

Perhaps most important though, is that for a dog, any dog, but here we're talking about chav owned staffys, no training is necessary to make them viscious, in fact it's often a complete absence of training that results in a dog being viscious.

 

If you do not train a dog, the chances are good that it will end up being a problem dog, and, no disrespect to chavs, but, a portion of them get a dog cos it 'looks hard' and end up not having the knowledge or inclination to put in the work necessary to train it.

[PaliRichard]

You do realise that Staffys are still used in illegal dog fights?

 

They still have the characteristic physique common to dogs used for fighting i.e. muscular squat body, powerful jaw etc, etc.

 

A new born staffy is probably emotionally no more a fighting dog than any other- but, for anyone wanting to bring it up as a fighter, it's certainly going to have the physical characteristics necessary for success.

 

Obviously an object suitable for a weapon must be very 'close at hand'- I wasn't suggesting forgetting about the knife attacker while you spend a few minutes rummaging through drawers

 

i.e. you're attacked on the street- a cars passing, can you barge into the attacker and try and put him/her under the car? That's a weapon.

 

is there a brick laying around- not brilliant against a knife, but better than a fist for redering him/her quickly unconscious.

 

etc, etc. Of course, anyone with genuine self-defence training (as opposed to black belt fantasists) would likely have been aware that something was building up and will have instintively clocked the immediate area for any object that could be used as a weapon.

 

My 'comparison' of a knife attack with a staffy attack was purely pointing out that, like a knife attack, where, regardless of how much training you've had, you are in a very serious situation which, most likely, will end in you being dead or in intensive care, similarly, if attacked by a viscious staffy intent on killing you, you're likely to be badly hurt/maimed/killed.

 

I agree, most chavs get them cos they look hard, and, because they have a reputation for being fighting dogs. Most chavs don't have the knowledge or discipline necessary to train a staffy to fight other dogs.

 

Some do though, and, increasingly, in this world where knives are very common and guns are brought into play for the longer running disputes, staffys and similar dogs are being acquired for attacking and defending against humans.

 

I recall a documentary on this subject where the interviewer was talking to some guy flanked by 2 dogs (don't recall if they were staffys, but they were defintily fighter-looking dogs) and he asked the guy what he would have to do to make them attack him (the interveiwer). The reply was than he'd simply 'look at him' i.e. he'd trained the dogs to lethally attack anyone when prompted by a particular look form the owner.

 

Perhaps most important though, is that for a dog, any dog, but here we're talking about chav owned staffys, no training is necessary to make them viscious, in fact it's often a complete absence of training that results in a dog being viscious.

 

If you do not train a dog, the chances are good that it will end up being a problem dog, and, no disrespect to chavs, but, a portion of them get a dog cos it 'looks hard' and end up not having the knowledge or inclination to put in the work necessary to train it.

 

As we seem to be going around in circles (and somewhat off topic) I'm just going to make one point. Then I'm leaving it at that.

 

You seem to keep labouring the point that I'm some kind of 'black belt fantasist'. I learned several martial arts (after street fighting for many years) and put them into practice as a competition fighter. I was quite successful until I conciously made the decision (which many people tried to talk me out of) to stop fighting because I found it increasingly distant to my moral code.

 

'Genuine self defence training' rarely teaches how a situation is escalating, only experience does that, all training can do is give pointers (which may or may not be useful depending on the quality of the teacher). It's very rare that in a dangerous situation all the subtleties of the build up will have been noticed. In reality situations occur, you react, it's how you react that makes the difference.

 

I don't have a 'black belt' (and have never trained in a discipline that awards them), but I am totally confident in my abilities. I was a fighter, not part of a 'club'.

[Plain Talker]

I tried to post this last night, but the Forum was down for maintenance:-

 

One wheel Dave:-

I completely agree with your last few sentences, about the idiots owning "status dogs".

 

The ones used for fighting are not usually family dogs, owned by responsible people; the fighting dogs are owned by the idiots, as a rule.

 

In the past, it wasn't Staffies, or staffy types, that were headlined as "devil dogs", it was your Rotties and Dobermanns, 20/30 years or so ago, and before that, dogs like German Shepherds which had the reputations for being nasty.

 

The press sensationalise it. Have you ever noticed, in such as the "daily fail", they always seem to print the same picture, of the same, jaw-snapping bull-terrier, to illustrate any "dog attack/ dog-bite" story?

 

I'm sometimes unsure if they only have that one illustration because all the other staffies are at home, cuddling their owners...? lol

 

Any dog can be a "bad" dog if it's not controlled/ trained/ socialised properly, or owned by some plonker who thinks of owning such a dog:- "It makez me lukk well 'ardd! or "I'll mekk meself sum REYT money churning litters of pups out of her"....

[onewheeldave]

As we seem to be going around in circles (and somewhat off topic) I'm just going to make one point. Then I'm leaving it at that.

 

You seem to keep labouring the point that I'm some kind of 'black belt fantasist'. I learned several martial arts (after street fighting for many years) and put them into practice as a competition fighter. I was quite successful until I conciously made the decision (which many people tried to talk me out of) to stop fighting because I found it increasingly distant to my moral code.

 

 

Oh no- I've not called you a 'black belt fantasist'. I have referred to 'black belt fantasists', but at no point said that you were one.

 

Till your last post you've given no concrete details of your actual fighting experience, so I was in no position to comment on your abilites.

 

 

 

'Genuine self defence training' rarely teaches how a situation is escalating, only experience does that, all training can do is give pointers (which may or may not be useful depending on the quality of the teacher). It's very rare that in a dangerous situation all the subtleties of the build up will have been noticed. In reality situations occur, you react, it's how you react that makes the difference.

 

I don't have a 'black belt' (and have never trained in a discipline that awards them), but I am totally confident in my abilities. I was a fighter, not part of a 'club'.

 

'Genuine self defence training' always covers how situation escalate into violence- if it didn't, it wouldn't be genuine self defence training, because, if one understands how situations escalate into violence, one is in a position to be well out of harms way before it gets violent, or, to be able to defuse the escalation before it reaches the violence stage.

 

Genuine self defence is not about beating an attacker into submission when there was an oportunity for defusion or escape.

 

Many arts claiming to be 'self defense' are not genuine, which is probably the cause of the confusion.

 

Genuine self defense not only 'covers' how situations escalate into violence- they practice it by setting up realistic and highly stressful scenarios where participants how to deal with the build up from everyday situation, via (usually) the typical verbal buildups that lead directly into devastating violence.

 

These are things that, in traditional karate schools and even most kickboxing/mma gyms are either not covered, or, at best, occasionally touched upon (after all, kickboxing and mma are primarily focused on the sport aspects)- they tend to be more applicable to dealing with the violence that occurs after the escalation process has run it's course.

 

We are being off-topic now, as, like I mentioned before, getting in a fight with a staffy (or any dog) is not like getting into a fight with a human

 

(although, interestingly, probably the most useful 'self defense' against a staffy would involve a good understanding of the 'dog escalation into violence' process, along with the instinctive continuous assessment of the environment that 'genuine' self defense training fosters).

[AJ sheffield]

Pitbulls (or any dog the experts deem to be 'of type') are already banned in the UK

 

Doesnt work though, I must see a dozen or more of these "types" every single day of the week on my travels round S5 alone.

[Leah-Lacie]

Doesnt work though, I must see a dozen or more of these "types" every single day of the week on my travels round S5 alone.

 

I see quite a few myself, I think they're mostly staffies crossed with a bigger dog, like a mastiff or something similar. Bred to have the looks, and the size of a pit bull terrier. What most people actually own when they claim it is a 'pit bull' is a large dog with pit bull type features. These too, as well as the actual pit bull terrier types are banned in the UK, but can be kept if neutered, tattooed, licenced, and muzzled in public (and maybe a few other things)